Re: [PATCH 0/2] usb: dwc3: drop 'quirk' suffix at snps,host-vbus-glitches-quirk

[Frank Li <Frank.li@nxp.com>]

On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 10:28:22PM +0000, Thinh Nguyen wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2024, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 05:14:01PM -0500, Frank Li wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 10:05:23PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 05:00:17PM -0500, Frank Li wrote:
> > > > > Since dt maintainer give comments at old thread
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-usb/20240119213130.3147517-1-Frank.Li@nxp.com/
> > > > > 
> > > > > The patch v4 already merged.
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-usb/20240124152525.3910311-1-Frank.Li@nxp.com/
> > > > > 
> > > > > So submit new patch to rename snps,host-vbus-glitches-quirk to
> > > > > snps,host-vbus-glitches to align dt maintainer's comments.
> > > > 
> > > > I thought the last comment left on the v1 was Thinh agreeing that a
> > > > DT property was not needed here and we should be able to apply this
> > > > conditionally?
> > > 
> > > I don't think so. This is workaround. We can use this track which chip
> > > actually need this. If some year later, such chips already end of life.
> > > We have chance to clear up these code. Otherwise, it will keep there for
> > > ever.
> > 
> > > And I am not sure that the side effect for other chips. Workaround should
> > > be applied as less as possible.
> > 
> > I'd rather do it unconditionally if we can, but if you and Thinh think
> > that we cannot do it unconditionally then sure, keep the property.
> > 
> 
> Perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant I agree that we don't need a new quirk
> property. If anything, it should be safer to keep vbus disabled before
> handing over to xhci driver. We should be able to do this
> unconditionally.

Okay, if everyone think unconditional is good. I can submit new patch to
remove these.

Frank

> 
> BR,
> Thinh